269 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

And off the rails it goes... *sigh*

You points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week?

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And off the rails it goes... *sigh*

You points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week?

... What?

ENGLISH!  Do you speak it?

And honestly, if you think the topic is worthless: SOD OFF!

Don't read it, don't post in it, it will die faster and be out of your sight.  And I won't have to deal with you.

Modifié par LucasShark, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:50 .

[grey_wind]

dreman9999 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

If every road you take leads you to the same spot, what's the point in replaying, but if each road takes you someplace different it gives the game depth and replayability.

Yep. The way ME1 is unreplayable because whatever you do, you end up in the same place. Oh, wait....

Same consept of ME2 as well.

A) I didn't say it's unreplayable, I said it ruins replayability and it does. You play through 2, maybe 3 times, and you've basically done and seen everything while getting the same ending.
ME2 is a lot more replayable than either ME1 or ME3 because you can not recruit some squad members, you can not do loyalty mission, and you can purposely get people killed. While the ending is pretty much the same, there is only one perfect ending, something only ME2 did.

ME1 - linear
ME2 - mostly linear with variations
ME3 - linear with the only differences being the choices and they're pretty much the same...

As I said before...
Nothing you did mattered? So what happens in Low ems is exactly the same thing as what happens in High ems?

Add, how is it a system the lets you do less work to build it's meter based on importing from past games favoring new players? 

Also to add. Play tuchancka with out the genophage cure, the coup with out Thane and rannoch with out legion or tali....Big differance.

I have. And there's zero difference.
On Tuchanka, Mordin is replaced by Not-Mordin, and Wrex is replaced by Evil Wrex. All these characters do exactly what the originals dd with a few changes in dialogue.
Thane's death on the Suicide Mission is far more noble than the crap ME3 railroads him into. His absence in the coup actually works better.
On Rannoch, Legion is replaced by Not-Legion. Tali's absence is about the only noticeable thing. And even if I'm forced to kill one of these races, my N7 troops from mulitplayer are worth 10 times either of them.

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And off the rails it goes... *sigh*

You points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week?

... What?

ENGLISH!  Do you speak it?

I'll repeat..
Your points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week? 

What hard to understand about that? That means your points are baseless.

[Urdnot Amenark]

 I love the idea of EMS but I hate that they implemented it the way they choose. It really took away from the drama and sense of accomplishment when random numerical values decided nothing other than a few variables in the game's ending. While Reject makes it possible to see that "Reapers win" scenario, in retrospect it doesn't hide the fact that it's still impossible to lose against them without Shepard choosing to. I think that if EMS functioned more as a checks-and-balances system, ala Mass Effect 2, it would have been ingenious. Of  course, that would only work if an outcome without the Crucible were planned, and that was not the case in this instance.

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And off the rails it goes... *sigh*

You points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week?

... What?

ENGLISH!  Do you speak it?

I'll repeat..
Your points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week? 

What hard to understand about that? That means your points are baseless.

"been well been countered "

No they bloody have not, and learn to use basic gramar.

[o Ventus]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And off the rails it goes... *sigh*

You points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week?

... What?

ENGLISH!  Do you speak it?

I'll repeat..
Your points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week? 

What hard to understand about that? That means your points are baseless.

It hasn't "been well been" countered if the other party is raising counterpoints.

Also, "been well been".

[dreman9999]

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

If every road you take leads you to the same spot, what's the point in replaying, but if each road takes you someplace different it gives the game depth and replayability.

Yep. The way ME1 is unreplayable because whatever you do, you end up in the same place. Oh, wait....

Same consept of ME2 as well.

A) I didn't say it's unreplayable, I said it ruins replayability and it does. You play through 2, maybe 3 times, and you've basically done and seen everything while getting the same ending.
ME2 is a lot more replayable than either ME1 or ME3 because you can not recruit some squad members, you can not do loyalty mission, and you can purposely get people killed. While the ending is pretty much the same, there is only one perfect ending, something only ME2 did.

ME1 - linear
ME2 - mostly linear with variations
ME3 - linear with the only differences being the choices and they're pretty much the same...

As I said before...
Nothing you did mattered? So what happens in Low ems is exactly the same thing as what happens in High ems?

Add, how is it a system the lets you do less work to build it's meter based on importing from past games favoring new players? 

Also to add. Play tuchancka with out the genophage cure, the coup with out Thane and rannoch with out legion or tali....Big differance.

I have. And there's zero difference.
On Tuchanka, Mordin is replaced by Not-Mordin, and Wrex is replaced by Evil Wrex. All these characters do exactly what the originals dd with a few changes in dialogue.
Thane's death on the Suicide Mission is far more noble than the crap ME3 railroads him into. His absence in the coup actually works better.
On Rannoch, Legion is replaced by Not-Legion. Tali's absence is about the only noticeable thing. And even if I'm forced to kill one of these races, my N7 troops from mulitplayer are worth 10 times either of them.

1. Wreav gives a differnt tone to the events. Wrex attatude gets the player to what to help him. His brother does not and his action gets the player to second guess helping him. Added, having a tuchanaka mission with out the genophaghe cure gets Eve killed. All this changes the tone of the story line and variable leading to what the players decides to do. AKA, CHANGES THE TONE. AKA, DIFFERANCE. Heck, having both Wrex and Eve died allows the player to save Mordin.

2.And Thane death in ME3 is nobler...You just don't like how he died. That does not make it a worse death becasue you don't like it.

[The Night Mammoth]

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I'll repeat..
Your points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week? 

What hard to understand about that? That means your points are baseless.

"been well been countered "

No they bloody have not, and learn to use basic gramar.

Ooph, last hurdle.

[LucasShark]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

 I love the idea of EMS but I hate that they implemented it the way they choose. It really took away from the drama and sense of accomplishment when random numerical values decided nothing other than a few variables in the game's ending. While Reject makes it possible to see that "Reapers win" scenario, in retrospect it doesn't hide the fact that it's still impossible to lose against them without Shepard choosing to. I think that if EMS functioned more as a checks-and-balances system, ala Mass Effect 2, it would have been ingenious. Of  course, that would only work if an outcome without the Crucible were planned, and that was not the case in this instance.

As one of my points states: a single number just doesn't provide the flexability needed to do this sort of thing justice.  if you use a singlular number, more or less all you have in terms of questions is: "greater than or less than".

[o Ventus]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Wreav gives a differnt tone to the events. Wrex attatude gets the player to what to help him. His brother does not and his action gets the player to second guess helping him. Added, having a tuchanaka mission with out the genophaghe cure gets Eve killed. All this changes the tone of the story line and variable leading to what the players decides to do. AKA, CHANGES THE TONE. AKA, DIFFERANCE. Heck, having both Wrex and Eve died allows the player to save Mordin.

2.And Thane death in ME3 is nobler...You just don't like how he died. That does not make it a worse death becasue you don't like it.

Just because you say something is nobler doesn't make it so.

I take it you've never heard the phrase "for all intents and purposes"?

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And off the rails it goes... *sigh*

You points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week?

... What?

ENGLISH!  Do you speak it?

I'll repeat..
Your points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week? 

What hard to understand about that? That means your points are baseless.

"been well been countered "

No they bloody have not, and learn to use basic gramar.

I missed a word. So what? My point is the your points already been countered.

[Netsfn1427]

grey_wind wrote...

I have. And there's zero difference.
On Tuchanka, Mordin is replaced by Not-Mordin, and Wrex is replaced by Evil Wrex. All these characters do exactly what the originals dd with a few changes in dialogue.
Thane's death on the Suicide Mission is far more noble than the crap ME3 railroads him into. His absence in the coup actually works better.
On Rannoch, Legion is replaced by Not-Legion. Tali's absence is about the only noticeable thing. And even if I'm forced to kill one of these races, my N7 troops from mulitplayer are worth 10 times either of them.

You can use that logic for pretty much all Bioware games.

KOTOR: Choices don't matter. I have to fight Malak in the end. I never used Bastila/ Jolee or Juhani anyway.
ME: Nothing I did mattered! I have to fight Sovereign/Saren husk and I get the same two choices about the council regardless of how I've played.
DA:O: Choosing a group to side with doesn't matter! I get four sets of allies for the final fight anyway.

Gameplay wise, choice in a Bioware game is always window dressing. Most of the time, you see no discernable difference in gameplay because characters are interchangable or redundant. ME2 was especially redundant, since they gave you multiple specialists for one specific tasks. If you can't appreciate the difference in the story with Wrex versus Wreav or being able to resolve the Quarian/Geth conflict with Tali and Legion, or potentially having to shoot the Virmire survivor because your failure to keep Thane and Kirrhae alive, then you should probably find a different company to buy games from.

[grey_wind]

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

If every road you take leads you to the same spot, what's the point in replaying, but if each road takes you someplace different it gives the game depth and replayability.

Yep. The way ME1 is unreplayable because whatever you do, you end up in the same place. Oh, wait....

Same consept of ME2 as well.

A) I didn't say it's unreplayable, I said it ruins replayability and it does. You play through 2, maybe 3 times, and you've basically done and seen everything while getting the same ending.
ME2 is a lot more replayable than either ME1 or ME3 because you can not recruit some squad members, you can not do loyalty mission, and you can purposely get people killed. While the ending is pretty much the same, there is only one perfect ending, something only ME2 did.

ME1 - linear
ME2 - mostly linear with variations
ME3 - linear with the only differences being the choices and they're pretty much the same...

As I said before...
Nothing you did mattered? So what happens in Low ems is exactly the same thing as what happens in High ems?

Add, how is it a system the lets you do less work to build it's meter based on importing from past games favoring new players? 

Also to add. Play tuchancka with out the genophage cure, the coup with out Thane and rannoch with out legion or tali....Big differance.

I have. And there's zero difference.
On Tuchanka, Mordin is replaced by Not-Mordin, and Wrex is replaced by Evil Wrex. All these characters do exactly what the originals dd with a few changes in dialogue.
Thane's death on the Suicide Mission is far more noble than the crap ME3 railroads him into. His absence in the coup actually works better.
On Rannoch, Legion is replaced by Not-Legion. Tali's absence is about the only noticeable thing. And even if I'm forced to kill one of these races, my N7 troops from mulitplayer are worth 10 times either of them.

1. Wreav gives a differnt tone to the events. Wrex attatude gets the player to what to help him. His brother does not and his action gets the player to second guess helping him. Added, having a tuchanaka mission with out the genophaghe cure gets Eve killed. All this changes the tone of the story line and variable leading to what the players decides to do. AKA, CHANGES THE TONE. AKA, DIFFERANCE. Heck, having both Wrex and Eve died allows the player to save Mordin.

2.And Thane death in ME3 is nobler...You just don't like how he died. That does not make it a worse death becasue you don't like it.

1. The tone changing is handled very well. But there are zero consequences to helping Wreave as opposed to Wrex. Hell, even if I cure the genophage with Eve dead and Wreave in charge, the EC tells me everything worked out for the Krogan exactly as it did under Wrex. What?!
2. In ME2 Thane dies to stop the Collectors. In ME3, Thane dies because the writers have no idea what to do with him, and they need to have Kai Leng kill someone so we think he's a badass (which he is the total opposite of).

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And off the rails it goes... *sigh*

You points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week?

... What?

ENGLISH!  Do you speak it?

I'll repeat..
Your points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week? 

What hard to understand about that? That means your points are baseless.

"been well been countered "

No they bloody have not, and learn to use basic gramar.

I missed a word. So what? My point is the your points already been countered.

No, they have not, I've offered counter-points to all legitimate rebuttals, and the only other counters I've seen have been blatant straw-manning of my points.  For instance turning "I can see why they would be tempted to use it" into "I know exactly why they did it, this is why, and I am right.".

Leave.

[dreman9999]

o Ventus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Wreav gives a differnt tone to the events. Wrex attatude gets the player to what to help him. His brother does not and his action gets the player to second guess helping him. Added, having a tuchanaka mission with out the genophaghe cure gets Eve killed. All this changes the tone of the story line and variable leading to what the players decides to do. AKA, CHANGES THE TONE. AKA, DIFFERANCE. Heck, having both Wrex and Eve died allows the player to save Mordin.

2.And Thane death in ME3 is nobler...You just don't like how he died. That does not make it a worse death becasue you don't like it.

Just because you say something is nobler doesn't make it so.

I take it you've never heard the phrase "for all intents and purposes"?

Which one of the deaths Thane can have in ME2 whould be nober then his ME3?
Death by bees, random missile to the face, being burned to death by explosion or lazer, crushed by a support beam, or overwhelmed by gun fire?

Note, your comparing those to him using his last breath to pray for Shepards safety.

[Legion of 1337]

EMS almost needed to be incorporated into some sort of Turn-based Strategy mini-game you played on the Galaxy map between main quests (yes I said quests - this is an RPG dammit! Or, at least, it's supposed to be...), where you would collect, produce, and deploy units to defend areas being attacked, your goal being to keep vital systems under control (Thessia and Earth fall completely, but you might be required to hold, say, Tuchanka, which would end up being your main source of troops - you lose it, you start losing territory FAST) and keeping the Reapers, above all, away from the Crucible. The more EMS you have, the easier it is to hold them back.

Also think the Battle of Earth should have been some sort of RTS mini game with the war assets you'd managed to acquire, where you have to command them around. A break from the standard gameplay? Sure. But a war on this massive a scale begs for this, and variety never hurt anyone.

[grey_wind]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

I have. And there's zero difference.
On Tuchanka, Mordin is replaced by Not-Mordin, and Wrex is replaced by Evil Wrex. All these characters do exactly what the originals dd with a few changes in dialogue.
Thane's death on the Suicide Mission is far more noble than the crap ME3 railroads him into. His absence in the coup actually works better.
On Rannoch, Legion is replaced by Not-Legion. Tali's absence is about the only noticeable thing. And even if I'm forced to kill one of these races, my N7 troops from mulitplayer are worth 10 times either of them.

You can use that logic for pretty much all Bioware games.

KOTOR: Choices don't matter. I have to fight Malak in the end. I never used Bastila/ Jolee or Juhani anyway.
ME: Nothing I did mattered! I have to fight Sovereign/Saren husk and I get the same two choices about the council regardless of how I've played.
DA:O: Choosing a group to side with doesn't matter! I get four sets of allies for the final fight anyway.

Gameplay wise, choice in a Bioware game is always window dressing. Most of the time, you see no discernable difference in gameplay because characters are interchangable or redundant. ME2 was especially redundant, since they gave you multiple specialists for one specific tasks. If you can't appreciate the difference in the story with Wrex versus Wreav or being able to resolve the Quarian/Geth conflict with Tali and Legion, or potentially having to shoot the Virmire survivor because your failure to keep Thane and Kirrhae alive, then you should probably find a different company to buy games from.

The Geth-Quarian arc is the only one where I felt my choices mattered to be honest. Granted Not-Legion was unoriginal, but I could forgive that.
I even like Wreave for the way he changes the tone of the Genophage arc. But I hate Padok Wiks, simply because he completely invalidates Mordin and his entire character arc.
My main point isn't that there wasn't any difference, but that character deaths (except Tali and Legion) had no real consequences on anything, when there's a generic replacement character to fill in the same role.

Maybe the ending just makes me look at the whole game in a bitter light.

[Hudathan]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Gameplay wise, choice in a Bioware game is always window dressing. Most of the time, you see no discernable difference in gameplay because characters are interchangable or redundant. ME2 was especially redundant, since they gave you multiple specialists for one specific tasks. If you can't appreciate the difference in the story with Wrex versus Wreav or being able to resolve the Quarian/Geth conflict with Tali and Legion, or potentially having to shoot the Virmire survivor because your failure to keep Thane and Kirrhae alive, then you should probably find a different company to buy games from.

Modifié par Hudathan, 21 septembre 2012 - 04:08 .

[JPN17]

EMS allowed Bioware to get lazy. It let them give out endings based solely on your number not taking into account how you reached that number. If you reached the magical 3000 EMS value by saving Feros and being a paragon with 50% GR or you destroyed Feros and only had 3000 TMS, but got to 100% GR by playing multiplayer the game played out the same in the end regardless of what you did. There were several instances within ME3, where what you did dictated how events played out (a major reason why the Tuchanka and Rannoch missions are so well liked) but when it came down to the ending how you got to your EMS score was meaningless. To get a specific ending, you just had to get it to a certain level. Takes the meaning completely out of your choices.

Modifié par JPN17, 21 septembre 2012 - 04:09 .

[LucasShark]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

EMS almost needed to be incorporated into some sort of Turn-based Strategy mini-game you played on the Galaxy map between main quests (yes I said quests - this is an RPG dammit! Or, at least, it's supposed to be...), where you would collect, produce, and deploy units to defend areas being attacked, your goal being to keep vital systems under control (Thessia and Earth fall completely, but you might be required to hold, say, Tuchanka, which would end up being your main source of troops - you lose it, you start losing territory FAST) and keeping the Reapers, above all, away from the Crucible. The more EMS you have, the easier it is to hold them back.

Also think the Battle of Earth should have been some sort of RTS mini game with the war assets you'd managed to acquire, where you have to command them around. A break from the standard gameplay? Sure. But a war on this massive a scale begs for this, and variety never hurt anyone.

See, this or the "suicide mission on steroids" thing would have made a lot of sense.  think about it: we are put essentially in the position of supreme allied commander here, but Shepard never does anything with that authority, never makes any tactical decisions.  This should have been what the suicide mission was prepping him/her for.  Being a proper military leader.  "you might make a good general some day" as Septimus once said.  All that sort of thing.

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And off the rails it goes... *sigh*

You points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week?

... What?

ENGLISH!  Do you speak it?

I'll repeat..
Your points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week? 

What hard to understand about that? That means your points are baseless.

"been well been countered "

No they bloody have not, and learn to use basic gramar.

I missed a word. So what? My point is the your points already been countered.

No, they have not, I've offered counter-points to all legitimate rebuttals, and the only other counters I've seen have been blatant straw-manning of my points.  For instance turning "I can see why they would be tempted to use it" into "I know exactly why they did it, this is why, and I am right.".

Leave.

The point don't counter anything.
Your still not seeing that you complints don't have anything to do with ems but the value of resources, which is nothing more then argueing why one gun is better then another. I was down this way as a issue of balancing...Nothing more. Arguing on this point is just a nick pick.

Your secound point is an exploration issue not ems.
Your third point is an issues of priority earth and seeing them and not seeing make no difference.
Your last point is an issue the you not get the fact that the system is also based on past choices in which you don't know what the value of will be later on.

How can action you do in past game becoming a value toward defeating the reapers mean the ME3 is only focus to it's own conclusion instead of the entire series when the series story is about stopping the reapers from day one? 

[Netsfn1427]

grey_wind wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

I have. And there's zero difference.
On Tuchanka, Mordin is replaced by Not-Mordin, and Wrex is replaced by Evil Wrex. All these characters do exactly what the originals dd with a few changes in dialogue.
Thane's death on the Suicide Mission is far more noble than the crap ME3 railroads him into. His absence in the coup actually works better.
On Rannoch, Legion is replaced by Not-Legion. Tali's absence is about the only noticeable thing. And even if I'm forced to kill one of these races, my N7 troops from mulitplayer are worth 10 times either of them.

You can use that logic for pretty much all Bioware games.

KOTOR: Choices don't matter. I have to fight Malak in the end. I never used Bastila/ Jolee or Juhani anyway.
ME: Nothing I did mattered! I have to fight Sovereign/Saren husk and I get the same two choices about the council regardless of how I've played.
DA:O: Choosing a group to side with doesn't matter! I get four sets of allies for the final fight anyway.

Gameplay wise, choice in a Bioware game is always window dressing. Most of the time, you see no discernable difference in gameplay because characters are interchangable or redundant. ME2 was especially redundant, since they gave you multiple specialists for one specific tasks. If you can't appreciate the difference in the story with Wrex versus Wreav or being able to resolve the Quarian/Geth conflict with Tali and Legion, or potentially having to shoot the Virmire survivor because your failure to keep Thane and Kirrhae alive, then you should probably find a different company to buy games from.

The Geth-Quarian arc is the only one where I felt my choices mattered to be honest. Granted Not-Legion was unoriginal, but I could forgive that.
I even like Wreave for the way he changes the tone of the Genophage arc. But I hate Padok Wiks, simply because he completely invalidates Mordin and his entire character arc.
My main point isn't that there wasn't any difference, but that character deaths (except Tali and Legion) had no real consequences on anything, when there's a generic replacement character to fill in the same role.

Maybe the ending just makes me look at the whole game in a bitter light.

I've honestly never killed Mordin to get Wiks, but I don't know. It doesn't seem crazy that multiple Salarians would have issues with the Genophage.

I can't blame them for having replacements. Certain things were needed to advance the plot. It's the consequence of having a choice in a game that could result in key characters dying. Those that weren't absolutely necessary, like Garrus, don't get replaced.

By the way, the critique you made is absolutely a fair one. But it's something that exists in every Bioware game. It bothers me that people single out ME3 for it, when it's present in every other game.

Modifié par Netsfn1427, 21 septembre 2012 - 04:15 .

[LucasShark]

JPN17 wrote...

EMS allowed Bioware to get lazy. It let them give out endings based solely on your number not taking into account how you reached that number. If you reached the magical 3000 EMS value by saving Feros and being a paragon with 50% GR or you destroyed Feros and only had 3000 TMS, but got to 100% GR by playing multiplayer the game played out the same in the end regardless of what you did. There were several instances within ME3, where what you did dictated how events played out (a major reason why the Tuchanka and Rannoch missions are so well liked) but when it came down to the ending how you got to your EMS score was meaningless. To get a specific ending, you just had to get it to a certain level. Takes the meaning completely out of your choices.

Exactly, it presented an exceptionally easy way out, and they took it.  ME2's suicide mission tied itself togeather very well: almost all "main" missions, ie: the recruitment and loyalty missions factored in somehow, as did your willingness to spend money on upgrading the Normandy.  How well you prepped and your tactical decisions carried weight, because once they were launched, there was no way to "redo" them, and the cost wasn't purely numerical, but characters who we'd gotten attached to through said missions.

[dreman9999]

grey_wind wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

I have. And there's zero difference.
On Tuchanka, Mordin is replaced by Not-Mordin, and Wrex is replaced by Evil Wrex. All these characters do exactly what the originals dd with a few changes in dialogue.
Thane's death on the Suicide Mission is far more noble than the crap ME3 railroads him into. His absence in the coup actually works better.
On Rannoch, Legion is replaced by Not-Legion. Tali's absence is about the only noticeable thing. And even if I'm forced to kill one of these races, my N7 troops from mulitplayer are worth 10 times either of them.

You can use that logic for pretty much all Bioware games.

KOTOR: Choices don't matter. I have to fight Malak in the end. I never used Bastila/ Jolee or Juhani anyway.
ME: Nothing I did mattered! I have to fight Sovereign/Saren husk and I get the same two choices about the council regardless of how I've played.
DA:O: Choosing a group to side with doesn't matter! I get four sets of allies for the final fight anyway.

Gameplay wise, choice in a Bioware game is always window dressing. Most of the time, you see no discernable difference in gameplay because characters are interchangable or redundant. ME2 was especially redundant, since they gave you multiple specialists for one specific tasks. If you can't appreciate the difference in the story with Wrex versus Wreav or being able to resolve the Quarian/Geth conflict with Tali and Legion, or potentially having to shoot the Virmire survivor because your failure to keep Thane and Kirrhae alive, then you should probably find a different company to buy games from.

The Geth-Quarian arc is the only one where I felt my choices mattered to be honest. Granted Not-Legion was unoriginal, but I could forgive that.
I even like Wreave for the way he changes the tone of the Genophage arc. But I hate Padok Wiks, simply because he completely invalidates Mordin and his entire character arc.
My main point isn't that there wasn't any difference, but that character deaths (except Tali and Legion) had no real consequences on anything, when there's a generic replacement character to fill in the same role.

Maybe the ending just makes me look at the whole game in a bitter light.

1. You can't resolve the geth/quarian issue with out Tali.
2. How does 
Padok Wiks invalidates Mordin.
3. Did you even play Tuchanka with out saving the genophage cure? Added, having Wrex be alive make one choice have a giganit consiquence.

It sound like it more like you just played the ME games one way.